In Brief
The appellant, a senior mining official, was accused of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and corruption for directing the issuance of Mineral Dispatch Permits to a reconstituted mining firm without obtaining prior State Government sanction as required by Rule 37 of the Mineral Concession Rules. The Trial Court discharged him, but the High Court set aside this order. The Supreme Court held that at the discharge stage under criminal procedure, the accused can only rely on prosecution evidence to counter grave suspicion—not on his own defence materials. Since the prosecution's evidence showed the appellant claimed to have consulted the Deputy Director (Legal), but the Deputy Director denied giving such advice, sufficient grave suspicion remained. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding the High Court's reversal of discharge was justified.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.